I find it fascinating that a tool or startup (no matter how innovative) that is utilized by only 6000 or so Web sites gets so much attention when:
Haloscan, JS-Kit, Sezwho and a score of others dominate this niche.
JS-Kit alone is used by over 50,000 sites and reaches in excess of 20 million people
The entity in question has a nebulous monetization model
This same platform so far has no revenue sharing for publishers
And most importantly Disqus has no viable way to allow publishers benefit from their own content's SEO aspect when their content will reside on Disqus servers.
Disqus is a refined commenting system that in my opinion is designed to be sold to a brand rather than taken to its natural conclusion by Daniel and his team. This is the only logical reason for there not being a monetization or business model in place (or at least in view) and for apparently pirating massive SEO benefit from published comments (Google might like this, or any business that can derive such an SEO bonanza).
It is in Fred Wilson's benefit to see that the world thinks a comment system will replace Google, and this is why you see such assertions (he is in on the investment). I on the other hand represent JS-Kit and have an interest too. So, I suggest you do your investigating and see what the story is for yourselves.
I was one of the first to review Disqus when it arrived om the scene - a great platform and a bright developer. At the time I did not know of any flaws however. These flaws appear to reside in the intentions of the startup toward content, its owners and transparency in my view. Perhaps you should ask the question: "Show me the money" a little more forcefully?